no title

Editorial

Keeping an eye on care

Nursing-home residents should be able to secretly record treatment

About our Editorials

Dispatch editorials express the view of the
Dispatch editorial board, which is made up of the publisher, the president of
The Dispatch, the editor and the editorial-writing staff. As is the traditional newspaper
practice, the editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.
Comments and questions should be directed to the
editorial page editor.

Ohioans are entitled to be sure that their loved ones aren’t being abused or neglected in a
nursing home, and lawmakers should support a proposed law that would protect that right. They
should not be swayed by the nursing-home industry’s attempts to water down the law to the point
that families would have less protection than they do now.

House Bill 298, co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Mike Duffey of Worthington and Democrat Michael
Stinziano of Columbus, would add an item to an existing section of state law referred to as a bill
of rights for nursing-home residents. The new language would state expressly that nursing-home
residents can have cameras or other electronic recording devices put in their room to monitor their
care, and that the attorney general may use such devices in investigating accusations of abuse or
neglect.

The proposal comes in the wake of shocking revelations last summer, after state Attorney General
Mike DeWine’s office investigated several nursing homes suspected of mistreating patients. The
office employed hidden cameras without telling nursing-home operators, but after securing
permission from residents and their families.

At one nursing home, Autumn Health Care in Zanesville, the video revealed neglect so fundamental
that Ohio Health Department nurses viewing it were sickened.

Autumn Health Care, which long had been on a state list of poorly run nursing homes, was closed,
and DeWine declared “a new day and a new way” of overseeing nursing-home care, promising to use
more hidden cameras to reveal abuse and neglect.

What was the reaction of the nursing-home industry? Outrage at this bad apple, and a pledge to
self-police? No. Carol Roth, attorney for the Ohio Health Care Association, an industry lobbying
group, suggested that nursing homes adopt policies requiring families to agree to a camera ban
before placing someone.

That’s where HB 298 comes in: By establishing the right of nursing-home patients and families to
install secret cameras, it would bar nursing homes from demanding that people give up that
right.

The nursing-home lobby wants the bill changed to require notification that a camera is in use.
Duffey and Stinziano are right to oppose such an amendment, as it would wipe out the essential
function of cameras: allowing a view of how residents are treated when employees think no one is
looking.

As for the privacy of other residents sharing a room with someone whose families wants a camera,
Duffey points out that sharing a nursing-home room with someone else inherently compromises one’s
privacy. However, he’s willing to consider requiring families to get the permission of roommates or
their families before installing a camera.

It’s hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable than nursing-home residents. Physically frail and
sometimes suffering from dementia or conditions that hamper communication, they often can neither
defend themselves nor speak up if they are neglected or abused. With its reaction to the Zanesville
case, the nursing-home industry has shown that its highest priority is protecting nursing homes
from liability.

Duffey’s and Stinziano’s bill would put the emphasis where it belongs, on decent care for
nursing-home residents.